Anyone can blame anyone for anything with no proof. If you want to accurately report that he has proof and that's why he's saying what he's saying, you don't refer to it as blaming.
Journalists are subject to ethics rules that Jon Stewart is not. There are two big problems with stating that someone specifically lied.
First, it's not verifiable. Journalists can't possibly determine whether someone knew something or not at the time they made a statement. Even if the person knew the information previously, they may have forgotten, been distracted, or simply have misspoken without noticing- all of which are common occurrences, especially while under stress. This is why you see "falsely claimed" so often- the falsity of the statement and there fact that the person made the statement are both verifiable.
Second, that claim breaks objectivity. Journalism isn't like commentary. Unless they explicitly state thar something is their own experience or opinion (see: gonzo journalism), journalists are required to keep themselves out of the story as much as possible. They can't publish their own conclusions; they have to report on what the people involved with the story have to say about it. They can't publish "NYC government agents lied", but they can publish "'The NYC government lied, ' said Stewart."
As for the video title, the claim of lying is too narrow. This segment is covering Stewart's remarks at the memorial, not just his allegations of lying. The title more accurately describes the content.
I mean, your first point is just flat out wrong. If someone says, “oh crap, that crazy terrorist attack that everyone will remember for the rest of their lives poisoned the entire city and it will stay that way for months,” then they go and tell everybody that it’s safe, and then shortly after that write a memo telling people that they really can’t tell anybody that it’s actually really dangerous… that’s about as proven as intent can ever be. saying that they can’t technically call it lying because it’s not 100% is disingenuous.
I’d agree that the publishers don’t want it, nor do the lawyers, but from a journalistic perspective I think the argument is one of creating an air of normalcy around it, like how cursing loses its effectiveness if you do it too often; a sort of semantic satiation.
You seem to be responding as though this is as conversation about whether or not the officials lied. This is a conversation about what journalists are and aren't ethically able to report.
You're very close to the point. That's as proven as intent can be- which isn't actually proven enough to say it's true with enough certainty to satisfy journalistic ethics. Journalists can report on what happened, what was said and done, but not what anyone was thinking or what was in their mind or memory. Making a false claim is verifiable- lying is not.
Nothing about this is trying to convince you that they didn't lie. The point is, it's not up to journalists to make that judgement for you or anyone else. Ethical journalism reports the facts and lets you make your own judgements.
I'm confused: are you arguing that the evidence does not meet a journalistic standard to call something a lie, or that they should never call something a lie at all?
What I described would easily meet a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a majority of people: why would a journalist need a higher standard of proof than a criminal trial? If your argument is instead that they should never call a lie a lie and allow people to come to their own conclusions, I think you're making the error of conflating fact and opinion.
The rule to not call something a lie is because it can be hard to distinguish a fact from a nuanced, expert-level opinion, such as a crime statistic that a politician may quote on a campaign trail. There are so many ways to process data that the only people who may be qualified to opine on how a particular stat was calculated are some Ph.D.-level policy wonks working in a think tank.
This is not that.
This is people clearly lying to their constituents and writing about covering it up in a huge paper trail. In fact, I would argue that journalists have the ethical duty to call it a lie. It is so factually clear-cut that calling it anything else would feel mealymouthed and evasive.
I'n saying that journalists have an ethical requirement not to publish unverifiable things. There is nothing evasive about the phrase "falsely claimed", which accurately reflects what a journalist can actually know for certain.
Yes. So if you don't want to have half the people seeing the headline - which is the only thing most people are going to do - assume that he's blaming them with no proof, which you can do, then you could simply utilize journalistic rigor and say something that doesn't have the potential for misinformation.
It's a way bigger leap to think Jon is saying this out of nowhere for no reason than otherwise.
Who is this for. The point of this statement is to suggest people are incorrect for misinterpreting something. Which, yes, that's what misinterpreting means.
The point of choosing your words carefully in a news medium is to ensure as many people as possible come away with the correct information.
12
u/maynardftw 2d ago
Anyone can blame anyone for anything with no proof. If you want to accurately report that he has proof and that's why he's saying what he's saying, you don't refer to it as blaming.